Evidence of meeting #28 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Professor, McGill University, and Director, Media Ecosystem Observatory, As an Individual
Just very quickly, the current consumer-facing behaviour of AI systems for news replacement is in general a much higher-quality product than what you would typically encounter in your average social media feed.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
That having been said, do most users actually understand how their custom AI has been trained? To what extent are they actually placing blind trust in something that they can't really evaluate?
Assistant Professor, McGill University, and Director, Media Ecosystem Observatory, As an Individual
Almost no one has.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
I will have to cut you off there.
We'll turn to Madame Brière for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the three witnesses for being with us today.
Your testimony is frankly very interesting. I agree with my colleague that you complement one another very well.
Mr. Gunn, in your opening remarks, you talked about the importance of developing attachment and creating connections. Mr. Blask also talked about that in his. He said that civic resilience was a structural problem in our communities. He talked about the importance of developing human relationships and strengthening memory.
Two weeks ago, in my riding of Sherbrooke, there was the Pain partagé campaign. Groups like the Boy Scouts and the cadets were all there, going from house to house giving bread to people. There were stalls where you could buy bread. They were the ones standing there handing it out.
I saw the beauty and kindness of these young people, who are trained and disciplined, who want to help and who want to pass on all the wonderful values they learn in these youth groups.
Do you think that building on that would be a good way to broaden citizen engagement? There are different ways to be committed to our democratic institutions.
Fellow, National Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Security and Resilience, Carleton University, As an Individual
I'd hate to be the person who would disagree with that. That would be awful.
Fellow, National Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Security and Resilience, Carleton University, As an Individual
Who is that person? Who is that guy? Yes. That's exactly the thing. There is already.... Well, I'll say it like this. What's really interesting to me is that all of the military investments right now are talking about dual use. They're going to build a hospital for a base in the north, but that hospital is going to serve the community. We already have this potential for a dual-use social infrastructure, which is groups like that, which benefit the participants but also benefit our civic resilience. I think it's a matter of some of these. They can self-identify and volunteer, and the others can be externally identified, but we want to bolster that in any way we possibly can.
I think what we may have seen, though, is a decrease in participation in a lot of those traditions. You named the Scouts. The Scouts and the Girl Guides don't have the same numbers they had in the past. I'm pretty sure of this. I think we just need to change our culture. “Maybe just change our culture.” That's a fun thing to say. How can we make it more habitual and dedicated, so that those are the priorities of participation for our kids forever on this, in any way?
This hasn't worked. Let's go back to what was working. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying to go back and all be farmers, as awesome as that would be. We're not all going to do that.
How do we go back and participate in this existing social infrastructure? We'll have a better life because of it. I'm going to give you a quick example, because it changed my life.
During the virus time, I used to worry about millions of kids, and then I started worrying about dozens of people in my neighbourhood. We took over a volunteer ice rink. I didn't even skate. I just liked the idea of building something. I started worrying about dozens of people, and now we have a group of about 60 volunteers. We've done this new thing where we get together around a fire for a celebratory meal, and we cook.
People say they haven't done that before in their own communities. It's kind of sad, but it's also hopeful, because this is what we need to do. I think we lost that. It's just a matter of all of us putting in our own.... It's risky. It's risky to make new friends. It's risky to get into your community, but I think we all need to take that risk and build it back ourselves.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Hear, hear. Thank you for sharing that wonderful example with us.
What can we do to attract young people to these groups?
What can we do to also get adults to interest their children in taking part in this kind of initiative?
Fellow, National Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Security and Resilience, Carleton University, As an Individual
Okay.
A part of those survey results that isn't out yet is that kids want more face-to-face interaction. They want it.
If you look at things in Ontario, for example—and there are some consistencies about this across the country—service is a part of the school curriculum, but what types of opportunities are available to enable them to participate in service? Sure, you learn something licking envelopes and putting it in the thing for an NGO, if that opportunity even exists, but what could be out there that is much more substantial and constructive, and that maybe in the longer term kids could get involved in? I think that's actually what we're missing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
We will now suspend for a few minutes for the next panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Welcome back. I'd like to thank the clerk for herding the cats, which is always a challenge in the House of Commons. We'll proceed with our second panel.
We have, from the Agri-Food Analytics Lab, Sylvain Charlebois, director and professor at—this name is always a challenge for me—Dalhousie University; from the Euphrosine Foundation, Niamh Leonard, executive director; and from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, John Carpay, president and founder.
We'll go to Dr. Charlebois for five minutes, please.
I will be pretty strict on the five minutes.
Sylvain Charlebois Director and Professor, Dalhousie University, Agri-Food Analytics Lab
Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss the current state of civic resilience in Canada, an issue that is both timely and fundamental to the health of our democracy.
I appear before you as a researcher specializing in food systems, supply chains and consumer behaviour. While my work focuses on agri-food, the insights extend far beyond it. Food is one of the most immediate and tangible ways Canadians experience economic pressure, institutional performance and, importantly, trust.
Over the past several years, Canada has faced a series of shocks, pandemic disruptions, geopolitical instability and sustained food inflation. These events have tested not only our supply chains but also public confidence in institutions. Civic resilience at its core depends on that confidence.
Allow me to offer three examples that illustrate the challenges we are facing.
First is the role of media and open discourse. Earlier this month, my 25-year collaboration with La Presse, during which I wrote over 1,000 columns for free, came to an end. This followed concerns I had publicly expressed as a citizen on social media about how public funding for private sector media could potentially influence editorial decisions. What is important here is not disagreement. Debate is essential in a healthy democracy, but the reaction was surprising. No other media organization responded in the same way. This raises broader questions about how comfortable we are collectively with the challenging of prevailing narratives. Civic resilience depends on our ability to sustain open, pluralistic dialogue without disproportionate consequences.
Second is the issue of industrial carbon pricing and its indirect effects on Canadians. While the consumer carbon charge has been removed, the industrial carbon price continues to rise, now reaching $110 per tonne. In the agri-food sector, these costs do not disappear: They are embedded across supply chains, from processing to transportation to distribution. Many businesses are adjusting quietly, often through surcharges or contract changes, yet very few media outlets are examining these dynamics closely. We have. This gap matters. When citizens sense that real economic pressures are not being fully acknowledged or explained, it can erode trust in both institutions and the information ecosystem meant to inform them.
Third is the Loblaw boycott and countertariffs by Ottawa. I can go on and on with many examples.
Taken together, these examples point to a common thread: Civic resilience is about not only how institutions perform but also how they are perceived, understood and trusted.
From my perspective, strengthening civic resilience in Canada requires action in three key areas.
First is transparency. Canadians need clearer, more accessible information, whether about public policy, pricing mechanisms or institutional decision-making.
Second is accountability. Institutions must not only act fairly but also be seen to act fairly. Perception is critical, and trust is difficult to rebuild once lost.
Third is engagement. Canadians must feel that their voices matter and that open dialogue is encouraged. Civic resilience depends on participation, not just compliance.
In closing, civic resilience is not a fixed condition. It is dynamic and must be actively maintained. If Canadians begin to lose confidence in the institutions that shape their daily lives—whether governments, markets or media—then resilience weakens, but with transparency, accountability and open dialogue, it can be strengthened.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
Niamh Leonard Executive Director, Euphrosine Foundation
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Niamh Leonard. I am the executive director of the Euphrosine Foundation, which supports charities that are protecting and expanding the democratic spaces where people participate and hold power to account.
Before I dive in, I want to acknowledge that many of you have spent decades doing the work I'm about to speak about, meeting people in community centres and diners who carry big dreams but feel that the political system is broken. You know better than most what it takes to show someone that our system can still hold their hopes.
My own path into this work started when I was 19 and stopping my peers on sidewalks, asking them to pledge to vote. I was not there to sell them on a party. I was there because I believed—I still do—that people deserve the information, the confidence and the space to decide for themselves. That conviction has carried me from the non-profit sector to law and to philanthropy, always with the belief that the greatest service we can do for others is to support their agency.
I am here to make one central argument: Canada should create a Canadian democracy fund to disburse $20 million a year through an arm's-length granting mechanism to support on-ramps into the democratic system. This proposal was developed collectively and is now endorsed by more than 130 leaders across the country.
I will make four points in support of it. First, the need is urgent. Second, the fund would support our defence commitments. Third, our allies are moving ahead with similar initiatives. Fourth, the fund is feasible.
First, what's the problem?
Democracy is in retreat worldwide. It's no secret that just 26% of the world's population now lives in a democracy. Here at home, only 40% of Canadians believe that the political system allows them to have a say, let alone a meaningful one. Shockingly, one in four feels that our institutions need to be torn down.
The distance between people and their institutions is the space that hostile actors and extremist movements are rushing to exploit. Now is the time to strengthen our democratic immune system.
Second, this work would support our defence commitments.
Canada recently spent $63 billion on defence, meeting its 2% NATO target. It now plans to raise that commitment to 5% of GDP. However, defence spending alone is insufficient. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly has adopted a resolution urging allied states to allocate a portion of the 1.5% in defence and security-related investments to strengthening democratic resilience through a whole-of-society approach, partnering with civil society to strengthen information systems, promote digital and media literacy, and build civic engagement. The strongest safeguard of our democracy is not tanks and bombs; it is people who believe that their country is theirs to shape.
Third, our allies are moving ahead.
The European Union, fighting an authoritarian regime at its doorstep, understands the importance of investing in democratic resilience. Last year, it launched the EU democracy shield, which is a unified strategy to safeguard the information space, strengthen elections and independent media, and boost citizen engagement.
This strategy is backed by a proposed nine-billion-euro commitment to this work, which is a doubling of the EU's previous investments in this area.
Fourth, the fund is feasible.
The Canadian democracy fund would provide $20 million annually through an arm's-length granting mechanism. It would support non-partisan organizations working with people directly on the ground, like many the committee has already heard from. These are organizations that run electoral and media literacy programs, design and implement citizens' assemblies, make government proceedings accessible to the public, and counter hate, discrimination and polarization. These organizations are effective, non-partisan and under-resourced. A Canadian democracy fund would allow them to scale.
The philanthropic sector is already mobilizing. In January, more than 20 Canadian foundations convened for the inaugural meeting of Democracy Funders Canada, which is a new network committed to strengthening the pillars of our democracy.
To conclude, Canada invests billions to defend against threats at our borders, but the deeper threat is Canadians no longer believing that their democratic institutions are worth engaging with, let alone protecting. It is time to invest here at home in bringing people to our institutions and our institutions to people.
Politics should not be something that is done to us by people far away. It is how we negotiate our shared life across geographies, ideologies, religions and languages. It belongs to us all. We will know we have succeeded when people from Cochrane to Iqaluit to Rimouski to Gander feel that they are co-designers of our democracy and not mere tenants within it.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you.
It was four minutes and 15 seconds. That was exceptional.
Mr. Carpay, you have five minutes, please.
John Carpay President and Founder, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
I am delighted for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss social trust and civic engagement.
As a graduate of Laval University 37 years ago, I am also delighted to be able to speak in French today. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often in Alberta.
Today I will touch on three topics. The first is the rule of law and equality before the law. The second is how equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, undermines social trust, and the third is how the federal government can increase civic engagement.
Social trust is the trust Canadians have towards fellow citizens who are not family members or friends. It depends very heavily on the rule of law.
The Roman goddess Justicia wore a blindfold so she couldn't see the skin colour or other characteristics of the people who appeared before her. The principle behind the blindfold was “equal rights for all, special privileges for none”.
Social trust cannot be strengthened when the law applies differently depending on race or other personal characteristics. We were all created in the image of God. Every person has intrinsic value as a human being.
The preamble of the charter states, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. The statement is followed by a colon, not a period. This means that the contents of the charter flow from the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
To enhance social trust, we need to emphasize what unites us rather than what divides us. The rule of law is undermined, if not completely destroyed, when citizens are led to believe that their legal rights depend on personal characteristics such as sexual orientation and so on.
Equity, diversity and inclusion ideology emphasizes division rather than our common humanity. It necessarily leads to conflict and competition. It promotes the idea that we must belong to a victim class or an oppressor class. The emphasis is not on our common humanity. In the EDI ideology, the ultimate triumph comes when the victim group vanquishes, defeats and crushes the oppressor group. This is not an ideology that goes by.... There's a beautiful slogan you may have seen on bumper stickers that says, “Be the change that you want to see in the world.” The EDI ideology is focused on group rights.
An example of this, quite recently, is the Musqueam agreement, which became public in March. It was signed in secret. It jeopardizes the property rights of over two million people in the greater Vancouver area. It recognizes aboriginal title, which is about not just the right to hunt and fish but also actual ownership of the land. When you take away people's property, threaten to do so or create a scenario where that could happen, it is not the way to get social trust or reconciliation. Everyone in Canada is a settler or the descendant of a settler. I have to ask the question: With section 35 of the Constitution and the royal proclamation, why do we create different legal rights for 95% of the people whose ancestors came from Europe, Asia and Africa in the last 500 years and 5% of the population whose ancestors came here more than 500 years ago?
To increase social confidence, the federal government can take steps to abolish EDI initiatives and race-based laws and policies. For example, abolish the Indian Act, repeal the agreement signed in secret in February with the Musqueam, and view all Canadians as first-class citizens under the principle of equal rights for all and special privileges for none.
I see that I have 20 seconds left. I'll say, briefly, that the government should also respect section 92 of the Constitution Act on division of powers. If the government itself is not respecting the Constitution, it breeds a cynicism that is contrary to civic engagement.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
It's three for three to the witnesses for being at or under five minutes. The chair appreciates that.
We'll turn to Mr. Jackson for six minutes.
As a reminder, I cannot be my usual lax self on the timing, so I will be fairly strict on the time, since we're running a little late.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you, Chair. I'll do my best to recognize that.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. It's a pleasure to hear from you all.
My questions are mostly for Professor Charlebois.
I have to begin by thanking you for coming to ag days in January. That was in my constituency. For those of you who don't know, that's the largest indoor farm show in western Canada. It's hosted annually in January in the wheat city. I've heard nothing but positive feedback from producers and those who attended just to hear you speak. I sincerely appreciate your coming out to western Manitoba for that. Thank you for your comments about Canadian agriculture, food production and food security within the resiliency context of our nation.
I want to thank you also for your opening comments and for being clear about the industrial carbon tax. I wonder if you would repeat your view on the relationship between the industrial carbon tax and the price of fuel. If you believe there is some relationship, why doesn't the media report those factual inaccuracies with regard to the government's position on the industrial carbon tax and food prices?
Director and Professor, Dalhousie University, Agri-Food Analytics Lab
As an academic, it's been very frustrating talking to the media and trying to convey to the public the academic work we've been doing on the industrial carbon tax—peer-reviewed, published work.
Our focus is on the industrial part of the industry and how the policy impacts the competitiveness of the ag sector, knowing that margins are incredibly thin. It's been our concern since day one.
The focus in the media, with the public, has always been on retail. We all know that in retail, prices can be impacted by hundreds of factors. When an economist says that the carbon tax doesn't impact retail prices, from our standpoint it's impossible. You can't say that scientifically. However, you can assess how the policy is impacting farmers, processors and their competitiveness over time, which could obviously impact food security.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
For many of the witnesses who have presented as part of this study, their main concern about civic resilience has been about misinformation and disinformation on social media and how getting mainstream media back on Meta platforms specifically should solve some of the misinformation and disinformation, just by getting reputable journalism back on Meta platforms. The mainstream media is refusing to report on their existing platforms about peer-reviewed evidence that you and your colleagues have done, so how would putting those news articles back on Meta improve civic resilience, if they're not reporting those facts through the streams they have available to them now?
Director and Professor, Dalhousie University, Agri-Food Analytics Lab
It's worse than that. They call us, and when we give them our findings, they edit it. They edit parts that they think the public will understand.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
You had peer-reviewed research that reputable, mainstream media journalists have then edited to change...not the facts necessarily, but the results.
Director and Professor, Dalhousie University, Agri-Food Analytics Lab
They pivoted the discussion around retail and the consumer. My guess is that they just tried to make sure that the information was easily understandable by the masses.